John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

The problem with blind tests is that they are typically conducted in less than familiar surroundings. As such, one may not be comfortable in test setting. They are also not allowed to familiarize themselves with the subtle timing, tonal or spatial cues that various cables CAN produce, but may take time to recognize. As such, being able to pick out the irregularities that do occur when going from cable to cable can become an extremely difficult task simply due to lack of familiarity.

With all of that in mind, the tests conducted by J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR showed his ability to differentiate between cables 100% of the time under double blind test conditions. On top of this, he was also able to distinguish whether there was was an ABX box in line 100% of the time. His ability to do this with witnesses refutes ALL other tests. Once an accuracy level that is irrefutable has been achieved, it simply becomes a matter of system resolution and the individuals' ability to hear such changes that comes into question. It is NOT a question of if there are audible differences anymore.

The fact that David Spiegel (the inventor of the ABX box) also told me first hand that another reviewer was able to differentiate between cables. This gives further credence to the FACT that cables can be audibly different. While Spiegel could not remember the reviewer's name, she showed up in response to a challenge that he issued that was open to ALL reviewers. My guess is that it was Enid Lumley, but i'm not sure. Keep in mind that Spiegel did these tests because he wanted to be able to prove or disprove that there were sonic differences amongst cables. As such, he will to this day say that HE can't hear a difference between cables under test conditions but acknowledges that others might be able to.

Give it a rest. Sean
>

My post was stuck on the front of Bears.
*I* wrote So You Want To Argue, everything down to "...frustrated by". We must have hit POST simultaneously or something.

Re: system resolution and J. Peter Moncrieff, like I said, you can't draw conclusions from that small a sample, he may be an extreeme statistical outlier. I'm not convinced yet, but I am willing to accept that a critical number of people can hear cables in a "high enough resolution" system, it's just a shame to have to rely on so much anecdotal evidence from both sides.
Still, overall we're talking about the discernment abilities of everyone who considers cables (most all audiophiles willing to make the investment) and their individual systems.

:Grungle:
end of message (just in case!)
-----

The community should understand the difference between "statistical" and "practical" significance. Consider the following example.

Through omniscience, we know that:

Car A gets 20.1 mpg.
Car B gets 20.2 mpg.

Obviously, the TRUE difference between the fuel efficiency of cars A & B is 0.1 mpg. Sampling a sufficiently large sample size of cars A & B, we would be able to detect a "statistically significant difference" between the mpg for the two cars. But once we do detect a "statistically significant" difference, what does it mean?

In this case, it means precious little in terms of "practical significance." That is, how much is a 0.1 mpg difference really worth in the real world? Not much! And certainly, consumers would not be willing to pay a significant amount of money for such a trivial difference in fuel economy.

Now to come back to the issue at hand in this thread, let's assume that it really is possible to find a "statistically significant" difference in the sound of cables (this is a leap of faith given JD's blind testing results, but references to a "J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR" keep cropping up and I'll accept this single result as valid). The central question becomes -- Is this "statistically significant" difference a "practically significant" difference. I would argue that it is not, especially in the context of the obscene prices charged by high-end cable manufacturers.

Understand that when statistical testing ends in non-significant results or mixed resutls (i.e., sometimes significant, sometimes non-significant) the most frequent reason is that the difference that is being observed (i.e., the "effect size") is so small. I suspect that it is the case here. Any true differences in the sounds of cables are so subtle and small that they cannot be detected with any consistency if at all. So a rational person must ask, is it really worth thousands of dollars to achieve such a subtle and small difference? Only the individual can answer that question for themselves. But as far as the audiophile cable manufacturers' claims of vast differences in and superiority of sound, I maintain that they are hooey at best.

In a recent post, Detlof mentioned that he tailored his system to "his ears", i.e. the kind of sound reproduction HE likes. I subscribe to this view and, thereby, my opinion on equip is tainted with my preferences in musical reproduction.

Cables are part of the system and, assuming they contribute a sonic signature (i.e. different cables can make the system sound different), "that cable is best that supports/enhances MY sound the best".

In this respect, I also subscribe to Doc's view above, in that "vast improvements in sound (can) be hooey". Only vast if enhancing YOUR sound. If not, hooey (despite positive audiophile adjectives...).

Can't we say that cables are both a personal and system dependant affair?

Docwarnock - Some people view audio gear as a hobby or an obsession like modifying cards. A guy who puts a new $1,000 exhaust in his car to gain 1/10th of a second in the quarter mile (a statistically insignificant gain in power, according to you) might look crazy to some. A guy who puts a new $1,000 power cord to gain 1dB of improvement in some area might also look crazy. But both guys are trying to make their gear the best it can be, not fit into the pefectly average category.